Starknet Poll Backs Study of Quantum-Resistant L1 Separation

By Elena Vasquez

An October 22 Starknet governance poll recorded 93.52% of voting power supporting research into an independent, quantum-resistant Layer 1, with 3,236 votes logged. The margin amounts to support from roughly 94 of every 100 weighted votes, although the announcement does not disclose turnout or the concentration of voting power.

What did voters actually approve?

According to the Starknet Foundation’s official announcement, the result “authorizes StarkWare and the Foundation to investigate the proposal.” It does not authorize Starknet, an established Ethereum Layer 2 scaling network, to leave Ethereum.

Any transition would require a separate governance process. The announcement sets no independence vote, budget or committed launch date for a standalone network.

Takeaway: Voters commissioned a feasibility study, not a chain migration.

Why is Ethereum separation under consideration?

Starknet currently processes transactions separately from Ethereum while relying on the main chain for security and settlement. That arrangement gives the Layer 2 network operational scale without giving it full control over the underlying security infrastructure.

STARK proofs rely on hash-based techniques considered promising for post-quantum security, while programmable accounts can support alternative signature schemes. The network still depends on Ethereum for data availability and bridge infrastructure.

That dependence limits unilateral action: Starknet can upgrade its own systems, but it cannot make Ethereum’s underlying infrastructure quantum-resistant by itself. Ethereum has set a December 2029 target for quantum-resistant base-layer protections, while StarkWare wants Starknet quantum-safe by 2027.

The resulting two-year schedule gap is a research question, not evidence of an accomplished migration. The source describes STARK-based techniques as promising for post-quantum security, rather than as a demonstrated cure against quantum computing.

Ethereum is separately reconsidering the role of scaling networks following Vitalik Buterin’s criticism of Layer 2s. That policy debate does not resolve Starknet’s engineering choices, although it increases strategic pressure to control upgrades and settlement.

Starknet’s earlier Quantum Leap upgrade focused on making Ethereum scaling faster. The network has since expanded into Bitcoin staking, while StarkWare’s previous Bitcoin scaling ambitions show a strategy already extending beyond conventional Ethereum transactions.

Takeaway: The proposal is part of a broader diversification strategy, not proof that Ethereum’s current security is failing.

What would independence cost Starknet?

Independence would give Starknet greater control over its upgrade schedule, but the network would not simply inherit an operating system. It would need to establish and operate:

• Its own consensus mechanism
• Validator incentives
• Economic security
• Transaction-finality guarantees

Starknet currently relies on Ethereum’s settlement infrastructure for functions it would have to assume itself. Recent network data put transactions processed by scaling networks at approximately 94% of the Ethereum ecosystem’s total.

In reader terms, about 94 of every 100 ecosystem transactions were handled by scaling networks. The cited snapshot does not identify its dataset or measurement window, so the figure is directional rather than a durable structural measure.

A potential Starknet departure would also revive the longstanding Layer 1 versus Layer 2 rivalry, which previously drew public exchanges between Solana and Starknet. The move would therefore carry competitive consequences beyond its internal technical redesign.

Takeaway: Independence trades inherited guarantees for control over a security system Starknet does not yet operate.

Would users have to abandon Ethereum?

StarkWare has indicated that STRK would remain Starknet’s native token, no replacement token is planned, and Ethereum bridges would remain available. The proposal does not necessarily require abandoning Ethereum users or liquidity.

That arrangement preserves nominal token continuity, but it does not settle how bridges, settlement and cross-chain operations would function after independence. Those operational questions remain part of the announced research rather than completed engineering specifications.

The joint study must examine technical requirements, economic tradeoffs and consequences for developers. Token continuity alone does not establish that the proposed chain can reproduce Ethereum’s present security and interoperability guarantees.

Takeaway: Users may retain access to Ethereum, but bridging and settlement arrangements still require design work.

What happens next?

StarkWare and the Starknet Foundation will establish a joint research effort covering technical requirements, economic tradeoffs and developer consequences. The work is intended to test whether an independent Starknet can support the network’s existing users and applications.

StarkWare chief executive Eli Ben-Sasson expects “a draft whitepaper to be available for public review in November.” If the research supports a transition, additional governance proposals will follow.

The draft could outline costs and technical requirements, but the announcement does not guarantee approval or specify an independence timetable. The next verifiable checkpoint is the November public draft; absent a supported proposal and a separate governance vote, Ethereum remains Starknet’s settlement layer.